Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

nbcbayarea.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 491 posts

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#341

Post by koheripbal »

nkrisc wrote: post #332
taneq wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A mentally unwell person is likely to feel targeted, oppressed, threatened, harmed, etc. by being silenced. Even a perfectly healthy 'normal' person will feel this way after being (what they see as) unfairly and arbitrarily silenced / disenfranchised.

I don't want to debate the state of her mental wellness as we can only speculate at this time, but I don't think a healthy person would feel that a tech giant is specifically targeting them, even if they think it might be unfair and arbitrary.

She didn't think she was being specifically targeted. In one of her rants she specifically stated that she knew of many other content creators having their videos censored, age restricted, and demonetized.

Her methods are nuts, obviously, but her beef with Youtube is entirely justified.

The end result, unfortunately, isn't going to be Google/Amazon/Facebook/etc... realizing the error of their ways - it's going to be them over-reacting to protect themselves.

I expect Silicon Valley campuses will get locked down. I expect any content that even slightly might maybe insinuate violence will get taken down.

tldr; The problem is going to get worse before it gets better.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#342

Post by titzer »

ikurei wrote: post #272
amelius wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that this happens seems even worse than PayPal freezing the accounts of random users.

Those two events have nothing to do with each other. In Paypal people send each other money, and the man in the middle is blocking it. In YouTube, Google decides whether or not to put ads on your video and give you part of the money. You aren't entitled to that cash just because you uploaded a video and people saw it. It's still terrible and irresponsible for YouTube to be arbitrary about it and have no clearly defin…

> You aren't entitled to that cash just because you uploaded a video and people saw it.

I dunno, why should all the ad revenue go to YouTube for a user's content?

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#343

Post by travmatt »

ssaew333 wrote: post #338

If you search her name on twitter, around 40% of what you see is right wing conspiracy theorists who assert, without evidence, that she was a member of ISIS. I also noticed a smaller percentage of people asserting, again without evidence, that she was an NRA member. And neither appear to be true. How do these get spread on Twitter? Are partisans mindlessly voting them up? Are bots behind this? Man, do I feel stupid f…

>If you search her name on twitter, around 40% of what you see is right wing conspiracy theorists who assert, without evidence, that she was a member of ISIS. I also noticed a smaller percentage of people asserting, again without evidence, that she was an NRA member. And neither appear to be true. >How do these get spread on Twitter? Are partisans mindlessly voting them up? Are bots behind this?

Propaganda is part of the standard far right response to any outbreak of violence, I wouldn’t put too much stock in it. They’ll usually link the shooter to which ever group is closest to their skin color (isis, antifa, or blm) and probably doctor some photos if any evidence surfaces which could otherwise generate cognitive dissonance (e.g., Nicolas Cruz wearing his MAGA hat). The NRA angle is interesting though, I wonder if those are just more right wingers trying to muddy the waters or if the far left is adopting propaganda tactics of their own.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#344

Post by ensignro2340 »

devmunchies wrote: post #316
shi wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one visits personal websites to watch self-hosted videos nowadays. YouTube is not only about video hosting, but also about the large user base.

YouTube is so popular that it’s indirectly censoring private content by getting all the traffic.

>YouTube is so popular that it’s indirectly censoring private content by getting all the traffic.

forgot your /s

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#345

Post by lr4444lr »

vowelless wrote: post #43

Firstly, my sympathies with the people at Youtube HQ. I have many, many friends in the bay area and so this kind of thing hits close to home. Secondly, I struggle when thinking about if we should give airtime to a shooter's grievances, or reasons. Or even mention who they are. I tend to be on the side of: don't give them any air time. And certainly, don't acquiesce to this type of behavior because it is almost by def…

I want to know what happens in the public sphere. I don't want some bureaucrat deciding what is and is not "too dangerous to public safety" to allow to to be broadcasted because some copycat MIGHT get inspired. To quote Charlton Heston's response in "Touch of Evil" when the corrupt cop played by Orson Wells complains how effective policing isn't easy, "your job isn't supposed to be easy. The only job where policing is easy is in a police state."

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#346

Post by komali2 »

declan wrote: post #104
komali2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You made me scroll through the youtube TOS to see if that was considered a violation. As far as I can tell it's technically not... in fact, I can't even find a blanket "YouTube reserves the right to remove any content, for any reason, whatsoever" statement. They don't actually need to state that in the TOS, because they do have that right, but, still.

Section 4(J): "YouTube reserves the right to discontinue any aspect of the Service at any time." Section 6(F): "YouTube reserves the right to remove Content without prior notice." https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms

I saw those, but the first is couched within the copyright violation rule, so I assumed it was associated. I.e. we can remove it for copyright violation at anytime.

For the second, I assumed that "if your content was removed for a reason we justified here, we don't have to warn you beforehand."

I'm no lawyer though and I'm sure in court those clauses would be summarily smacked across my face one way or the other.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#347

Post by _blz2 »

cporios wrote: post #260
adventured wrote: post #3

This looks like it's going to be an increasingly big problem for the platform giants, as it pertains to their increasingly aggressive speech restrictions. As they ramp those restrictions up, I'd expect the need for security to increase accordingly. A mentally unwell person is likely to feel targeted, oppressed, threatened, harmed, etc. by being silenced. They'll feel isolated and it'll very likely feel like a persona…

As far as I know, her videos were demonetized, not rejected. There's a huge difference between being silenced and being refused ad placement on your videos. Getting paid to express your opinion is not a human right.

Some of them were also made age-restricted even though, according to her, they did not include graphic content. From a glance I took at her videos, she did seem quite a bit off. Whoever is saying she is a far-leftist is plain wrong. She never talks about politics, just animal rights and little bit about culture). Most likely she could've been diagnosed with a mental condition if she ever bothered to get herself checked out. Unfortunately criticizing such people now-a-days usually backfires on the person criticizing.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#348

Post by VikingCoder »

ssaew333 wrote: post #338

If you search her name on twitter, around 40% of what you see is right wing conspiracy theorists who assert, without evidence, that she was a member of ISIS. I also noticed a smaller percentage of people asserting, again without evidence, that she was an NRA member. And neither appear to be true. How do these get spread on Twitter? Are partisans mindlessly voting them up? Are bots behind this? Man, do I feel stupid f…

When you read "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution" by Stephen Levy, you can just feel how excited they all were about bringing people together. Maybe that was just Levy's twist on it, but it's feeling tragic to me right now.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#349

Post by ensignro2340 »

shi wrote: post #299
spacehome wrote: post #253

She's complaining about being censored. She would have been helped immensely by somebody showing her how to host her own videos on her own website.

No one visits personal websites to watch self-hosted videos nowadays. YouTube is not only about video hosting, but also about the large user base.

Yes we understand that - but these were her options: continue hosting on YouTube, host on another site/hosting service (a lot of new anti-YouTubes are popping up), or self-host. She had a choice in this. YouTube being the most popular of them all doesn't mean she has to host her videos there.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#350

Post by Karunamon »

Wingwing wrote: post #331
hux_ wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are talking about people with mental illness. I think the platforms produce mental illness. If you influence and produce a certain kind of behaviour through appropriate reward mechanisms and then after a few years of conditioning reduce/remove the reward what do you think happens? Mental illness. YouTube has conditioned a generation of people to chant "subscribe like and share" like a robots. The day the "subscri…

Where has it been described that the woman was suffering from mental illness? That seems like a retroactive label.

I think mental illness is automatically implied when you go on a shooting spree for a video sharing site's monetization policies.
Post reply on HN